comments_image -

Bringing Human Rights Home

December 10 marks International Human Rights Day and events like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo show that it's time to bring a tradition that respects human rights back home.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

What if the world's governments came together and agreed on the fundamental rights that every human being must have in order to enjoy basic dignity, opportunity, and a meaningful life?

What if their agreement was profoundly progressive, recognizing civil and political rights like free speech, due process, and non-discrimination, as well as economic and social rights like the right to health care and housing, to organize, and to receive a living wage for a hard day's work? And what if they memorialized those rights in a seminal document, from which more specific commitments and enforcement could and did flow?

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that such a document exists. It's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it turns 58 years old on December 10 -- International Human Rights Day.

Although the United States played a leadership role in fashioning the Declaration and advocating its adoption, it also took steps to hamper its use here at home, bowing to Southern Democrats who feared it would overturn segregation. And in the years since, our government has failed to ratify, or outright opposed, key international agreements intended to fulfill the Declaration's promise, even as it pushed other nations to take human rights seriously.

It's time to change that. Events over the last six years -- Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, racial profiling and warrantless wiretaps, exclusion of immigrants from basic services and due process, Hurricane Katrina, and 47 million Americans without health insurance -- make clear that it's time to bring human rights home.

What do international human rights bring to Americans that our own Constitution and current domestic laws do not? Plenty.

For example, the federal courts have largely rejected the notion that the Constitution protects economic rights. But the Universal Declaration provides that "everyone has the right to work" under "just and favorable conditions," and that "everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

The Declaration affirms that "everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." It guarantees that "everyone has the right to education." And it insists that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

If that language sounds familiar, it's because Eleanor Roosevelt and other members of the U.S. delegation to the Declaration process borrowed heavily from FDR's vision of an "economic bill of rights" that led us out of the Great Depression and laid the foundation for unprecedented post-war prosperity.

Another area in which human rights add tremendous value is in ensuring equal opportunity and preventing discrimination. While a mountain of research shows that our criminal justice system is infected by racial bias and unfairness -- with race influencing outcomes in policing, arrest, jury selection, prosecution, conviction, and punishment -- our courts have declined to find a constitutional violation without proof that an identifiable person in the system intentionally sought to harm people of a particular race. Such a showing is almost impossible to make, and, in any event, misses the point.

By contrast, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which the U.S. has signed and ratified, takes a more realistic and effective approach. It prohibits practices that have the effect of treating people differently based on their race -- whether or not that discriminatory treatment is intentional. Well-documented racial bias in drug sentencing and the death penalty, for example, clearly fail that test.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, human rights day
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Minimum Wage Not Enough for a 2-Bedroom Unit in Any State (Unless You Way More Than a 40-Hr Week)

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board Will Investigate ALEC for Lobbying Violations

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Obama and Targeted Assassinations: Had Secret Kill List, Calls Killing American-Born Cleric "Easy Decision"

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Romney Excuse for Birther Trump Endorsement: I'm Running for Office and I Wanna Win!

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Women's Center In New Orleans Destroyed By Arson, Third Incident in the South

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
US Productivity Up, Wages Stagnant

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Scott Walker's Recall Strategy: Avoid Anyone Who Isn't A Walker Voter Already

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos

 
 
Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Contaminated by Fukishima Reaches US Shores

By Agence France-Presse

 
 
Thousands Protest Anti-Gay Pastor In North Carolina

By Annie-Rose Strasser | Think Progress

 
 
Bad Company for Mitt: Trump, Newt, and Now Meg Whitman

By Ed Kilgore | Washington Monthly

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]